orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/20/85)
> From Ken Arndt: > I beleive you almost have it right. The purpose of he media is to deliever > AUDIENCES to advertisers for money! > > Of course some people some times in control of the media use it for their > own (political?) ends. As much as the 'bottom line' allows. Do we see a > more fair treatment of Reagan lately, or are my eyes/ears deceiving me?? It is not simply that "some people some times in control of the media use it for their own (political?) ends.". It is that almost all the time the people in control of the media (i.e. publishers and media owners) MUST use the media to justify their own claim to the media. That claim is justified by the capitalist system and the legitimation of private ownership. The same legitimation of private ownership also legitimates the selling of media time to the highest bidding advertiser. It does *not* legitimate access to media time for all who might wish it or for those who may disagree with the viewpoints presented by advertisers. Thus we have the curious irony noted by Environmental Action several years ago: those companies that paid the most for advertising emphasizing their "concern for the Environment" were the worst polluters. These advertisers ads were seen by practically everybody. The fact that they were also the worst polluters was not. Environmentalists did not have the money to buy such expensive advertising time. Should access to the media be solely based upon money? Should freedom of speech and expression be confined to the highest bidder? Somehow that doesn't seem to be the way the Founding Persons thought democracy should work. The worst abuse of media power in the past several years was when LA TV stations refused to broadcast the California Senatorial debate because they could make more money with their regular commercial programming. I think all citizens or citizens groups should have some access to the media. Not simply those with money. tim sevener whuxl!orb